9-11 Conspiracy

Yes.Let me explain why.We normally suppose that someone making an erroneous statement is making a mistake rather than telling a deliberate lie, because this is in fact usually the case. We need positive evidence to accuse someone of deliberate dishonesty. You have supplied none.Then again, when we suspect someone of lying, we look for some sort of motive. I can't see NORAD's motive for lying here, can you? I've asked you to supply motive: you haven't.We also look at the rest of their statements for veracity. Now, the only discrepancy between NORAD's timeline and the findings of the Commission is about this one detail.Finally, we notice that in this case they themselves supplied sufficient information to the Commission and the public to show that their claim was wrong. This does not look like the action of a deliberate liar. Sure. And every time I post something inaccurate on the Internet, and someone corrects me, I could have found out that I was wrong with sufficiently diligent research, and without needing their help. But the very essence of making a mistake is that you don't know that you've made a mistake.In NORAD's case, it would take exceptional diligence to spot that their timeline was in error. There were (IIRC) about 120 hours of tapes requiring review. How many people listened to them all? Do you suppose that any of the "top brass" did so ... ever?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I've already provided you with this link.As one might expect, it's because a conversation about flight 11 got misinterpreted as a conversation about flight 175.

Ah yes, I was forgetting that basic epistemological principle: "Someone who doesn't know everything doesn't know anything".This was first noted by the famous Creationist scholar I. M. A. Dumbass in his justly celebrated monograph, Why Gaps In The Fossil Record Mean That I Can Ignore All The Fossils That Paleontologists Have Actually Found. Er ... weren't you the guy who was arguing that NORAD's timeline was a lie? "Takes them down"? Are you imagining some person making a list of the events on 9/11 in real time ... ? Ah, no, that's not what you're imagining. You have an even more implausible idea.Srsly, d00d, wtf?How the heck would a computer be able to record what time who said what to who? It's not like someone at the FAA pressed the "flight 175 has been hijacked" button on their terminal, and the "flight 175 has been hijacked" light lit up at NORAD, and the datum was stored in the Big Central Hijack Computer. One guy told another, over the telephone. And the tapes show that he did so mere seconds before flight 175 hit the WTC.

No. Sure, it's cool. But might it not be equally cool for me to analyze your analysis? That seems to be reasoning in a very small circle.As has been pointed out to you, NORAD's timeline can't be right, because this would involve the FAA telling them about flight 175 the moment it was hijacked.Also, NORAD's own tapes which they released prove that they were wrong about this detail. I have given you actual audiotapes of what the people at NORAD were saying.Sheesh. But that wouldn't help us know what was said when.The issue is: when was NORAD told that flight 175 had been hijacked? This can only be verified by actually listening to the tapes and understanding their content, something that a computer can't do. Not about the issue in question. No, look, the NORAD tapes trump the NORAD timeline: that's how we know that they did get it wrong. I gave you the notes of the Miller testimony because you asked how they got it wrong. Not even that.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.